Cyprus-Forum.com

[brother]

British report: Greek Cypriots showing no sense of urgency
By Jean Christou


BRITAIN will have to focus all of its attention on the Greek Cypriots if any progress is to be made in the resumption of Cyprus talks, the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee said in its report into the failure of the Annan plan.

“Following the referendum, Greek Cypriot politics have been characterised by much disagreement and recrimination, but there has been no fundamental shift in opinion,” said the report, published yesterday.

The 90-page report admitted it must have been “galling” for Greek Cypriots, victims of an invasion by a militarily far superior foreign power in 1974, to find themselves portrayed as “the wreckers” of the deal.

“There appears to be an acceptance on the part of most Greek Cypriots that a bi-zonal solution is the most likely outcome; what is far from certain is whether the present Greek Cypriot political leadership shares that view; we suspect they do not,” the report added.

The report said that in the coming months Britain and the rest of the international community should impress upon Greek Cypriots that their interests were best served by a negotiated settlement such as the Annan plan, and that they needed to articulate their concerns, “with precision, clarity and finality”, in order that negotiations can take place this summer.

“There is no evidence of urgency on the part of the government of the Republic of Cyprus and it is the Greek Cypriots who will, doubtless, prove hardest to persuade of the need for urgency. The leaders of the two sides will have to show qualities of statesmanship which have not been apparent thus far and to demonstrate their commitment to whatever settlement may be agreed, by campaigning for a resounding ‘yes’.

The Committee said there could be no perfect solution or no magic formula which delivered all the demands of both communities, but it said Britain would be in a unique position as president of the EU in the second half of the year, to assist the process.

“We recommend that the government make the achievement of a solution to the Cyprus problem a priority of its foreign policy in 2005,” the Committee concluded.

Examining the reasons why the Annan plan failed, the Committee said that those putting together the plan were so aware of the need to avoid a ‘no’ vote in the north, that they put into it features which, in the context of unrealistically high Greek Cypriot expectations of what was achievable, made a ‘no’ vote more likely in the south.

“The arguments against allowing settlers to vote were undoubtedly strong,” the report said. “Against this, however, it has to be remembered that the fate of the settlers, too, was being determined. Their interests cannot, however, be ignored or dismissed.”

It also mentioned that Turkish Cypriot citizens of Cyprus who lived in the south did not have the vote, making the electoral law in the Republic discriminatory.

The report also comments on President Tassos Papadopoulos’ response to UN Secretary-general Kofi Annan after the referendum.

“The President complained that parts of the report were ‘snide’, ‘offensive’, ‘ironic’ and ‘sarcastic’ and lambasted the UN’s ‘misguided negotiating tactics’, accusing it of acting with ‘undue haste’ One thing Mr Papadopoulos’ letter ensured is that the UN will not be unduly hasty in seeking to revive its mission of good offices,” the Committee said. “Mr Papadopoulos appears to have replaced Mr Denktash as the man on Cyprus who says ‘no’. As Lord Hannay put it to us, ‘I am afraid to say that his communications to the Secretary-general that I have seen in the last year bear a striking resemblance to those of Mr Denktash in the previous 30 years.’”

Commenting the government’s veiled threat late last year to veto Turkey’s EU accession talks, the report said that talk of using the veto so soon may have been unpopular.

“But there is also some evidence to suggest that, since entering the European Union, the government of Cyprus’s actions have been less than wholeheartedly communautaire. The spirit of co-operation, the big picture which was the impetus behind European enlargement, seems to be lacking.”
It cited as an example the fact that the government, “which has successfully claimed to represent all the people of the island”, had appointed only one Turkish Cypriot to its representation in Brussels.

“It would be a great mistake for Cyprus to see membership of the EU in terms of gaining leverage over Turkey or over Turkish Cypriots,” the report said.

The Turkish Cypriots were also criticised in the report. The Committee said that even after 1974 northern Cyprus was quite free to trade directly with countries of the European Community, until it chose unilaterally to declare independence. “As Lord Hannay reminded us… the north had every right to trade with the European Union; unfortunately they destroyed it, on a technicality by declaring their independence and thus invalidating all the stamps and seals which they used to show that the goods had been properly inspected and so on, so it was a self-inflicted wound by the Turkish Cypriots, by Mr Denktash’s policy of pursuing status rather than pursuing a settlement.

“It is also disappointing that the Turkish Cypriot authorities continue to impose an almost complete ban on the movement of goods from South to North.

“This lack of symmetry in the operation of the Regulation lends credence to claims that Turkish Cypriots are being protectionist, and that they fear successful intra-island trade will undermine their case for direct trade with other countries.”

However, the report then blasts the government for technically allowing Turkish Cypriot goods vehicles to cross but at the same time not recognising their driving licences, thus making it impossible for Turkish Cypriots to bring their produce south.

“It is the Greek Cypriots who have least incentive to conclude an early settlement. They are in the EU; their economy is prospering, with every expectation that they will be able to join the euro; and their situation is stable. For Greek Cypriots, there is much about the status quo which is positive,” said the report.
“Nowhere in the conclusions of the December 2004 Council of Ministers is it stated that the Cyprus problem must be solved before Turkey may join the EU, nor is it specifically required that she must withdraw her forces from Cyprus. On the other hand, for Turkey to join the EU without formally recognising one of its member states, or with forces still present on part of the territory of a member state without that state’s agreement, is impossible.”